Comments on: A right to health care? http://tomgpalmer.com/2009/07/19/a-right-to-health-care/ Personal website and weblog of the libertarian thinker Thu, 02 Feb 2012 04:34:24 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v= By: Tom G. Palmer http://tomgpalmer.com/2009/07/19/a-right-to-health-care/comment-page-1/#comment-10884 Tom G. Palmer Fri, 07 Aug 2009 10:55:10 +0000 http://tomgpalmer.com/?p=3721#comment-10884 I'm afraid that that's not how insurance works. Insurance providers no more profit from the suffering of others than doctors or farmers do. Sickness and hunger are the reason that we go to doctors and farmers (without those two fears, we would not give them our money) and risk is the reason we go to insurance providers. You might find this a useful place to start in understanding insurance and its relationship to risk: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurance I’m afraid that that’s not how insurance works. Insurance providers no more profit from the suffering of others than doctors or farmers do. Sickness and hunger are the reason that we go to doctors and farmers (without those two fears, we would not give them our money) and risk is the reason we go to insurance providers.

You might find this a useful place to start in understanding insurance and its relationship to risk:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insurance

]]> By: Tenrou Ugetsu http://tomgpalmer.com/2009/07/19/a-right-to-health-care/comment-page-1/#comment-10811 Tenrou Ugetsu Thu, 06 Aug 2009 04:03:17 +0000 http://tomgpalmer.com/?p=3721#comment-10811 It's a sad fact that the nature of insurance is one that inherently profits off the suffering of others. It's no doubt that the hope of any insurer is the person they are insuring will never get sick so and just pay their premium every month. In the same way that a creditor wants to keep those they loan money to in perpetual debt so they can continue to earn interest. It’s a sad fact that the nature of insurance is one that inherently profits off the suffering of others. It’s no doubt that the hope of any insurer is the person they are insuring will never get sick so and just pay their premium every month. In the same way that a creditor wants to keep those they loan money to in perpetual debt so they can continue to earn interest.

]]> By: Daniil Gorbatenko http://tomgpalmer.com/2009/07/19/a-right-to-health-care/comment-page-1/#comment-10337 Daniil Gorbatenko Mon, 20 Jul 2009 12:40:32 +0000 http://tomgpalmer.com/?p=3721#comment-10337 UPD to my previous comment. I outlined my reasoning on my blog http://daniilgor.blogspot.com/2009/07/why-universal-coverage-is-manifestly.html UPD to my previous comment. I outlined my reasoning on my blog

http://daniilgor.blogspot.com/2009/07/why-universal-coverage-is-manifestly.html

]]> By: Daniil Gorbatenko http://tomgpalmer.com/2009/07/19/a-right-to-health-care/comment-page-1/#comment-10334 Daniil Gorbatenko Mon, 20 Jul 2009 11:21:09 +0000 http://tomgpalmer.com/?p=3721#comment-10334 I think he could strengthen the case against positive rights by saying that since the Declaration of Independence provides that "all men are created equal", and that this wording refers unambiguously to formal equality (you can only be created equal in a formal, not real sense), any positive right would by default violate the principle of formal equality. Instead, Rep. Campbell uses somewhat vague logic to prove his case. Anyway, it is a positive sign that Republicans started using sophisticated arguments. I think he could strengthen the case against positive rights by saying that since the Declaration of Independence provides that “all men are created equal”, and that this wording refers unambiguously to formal equality (you can only be created equal in a formal, not real sense), any positive right would by default violate the principle of formal equality. Instead, Rep. Campbell uses somewhat vague logic to prove his case. Anyway, it is a positive sign that Republicans started using sophisticated arguments.

]]>